Dust Mite 30th November 2005, 06:52 AM Just trawling around my other favourite site BT3central.com and came across this little beauty. (http://www.bt3central.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26964)
Now thats some might prurty woodwork :eek:
Different 30th November 2005, 10:51 PM Excellent workmanship but to my taste it is just butt ugly!!!
Ross
echnidna 1st December 2005, 09:15 AM Good workmanship but real ugly
Tis neither modern nor classic
A tasteless modernisation of a classic style.
Dust Mite 3rd December 2005, 05:42 AM Well I for one like it. Not for what is is or isnt but rather for the workmanship in it and the fact that a great deal of time and care was taken.
I also remember seats like this being in a couple of country churches we used to attend when I was a nipper.
It also appearsto me that you Aussies dont seem to like anyrhing much from the US, so what do you like?
Got any halfway decent Aus designs that show a little of the WW history of Australia or what?
bitingmidge 3rd December 2005, 07:26 AM Excellent workmanship but to my taste it is just butt ugly!!!
Ross!!.... and you call yourself a woodworker!
;) :D :D :D
Dust Mite, on another thread you rightly remarked that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
There is a great tendency among us, as I tried to say on that thread, to mistake good workmanship for good design.
Rather than describe it as "ugly", I'll tell you why I wouldn't build it like that. I'll try to stay away from the "eye of the beholder" stuff, and keep to basic principals.
I may not be as harsh as Bob or Ross, (a lot of Americans wouldn't consider it tasteless, but then they still think blue checked suits are the go as well) but if you look carefully, you may see something proportionally just not quite right. When you look at it does the seat look too high or too narrow to you??
You'll also see as Bob intimated, a "modernisation" of classic decoration, particularly at the base which serves no purpose other than to make sweeping under it difficult. The skirt "feels" as though it comes from a different piece to the sides.
The "sleigh" sides are completely different in weight and feel to the back, almost as if the back was rescued from a different piece.
How much nicer would it have been if the back and the front panel had matching numbers of panels, or if the back had the same "baluster" detail as the sides? What about the way the curved sides just but up against the straight back piece leaving a curvy gap, because the designer didn't know what to do at that point?
See how the designer ran out of steam on the side panel, and didn't create a panel to match the front?
As an exercise in routing, it's no doubt given the owner a great deal of pride and satisfaction, and I could see it in the corner of someone's hallway, buried under cushions behind a few pot plants, so in the right spot it wouldn't scream "butt ugly", but neither could it under any circumstance become a classic.
No matter what style or whether a particular piece is to someone's individual "taste", great design is usually easy to appreciate.
It's in the proportion and detailing, and a well proportioned, well detailed piece will be appreciated by all, even if not to their particular "taste". This just isn't one of them.
BTW, I don't make a practise of criticising stuff, unless the author particularly is calling for same, and unless I can give clear reasons. I don't think it's good enough to use terms like "ugly" or "tasteless" (sorry chaps!;) ) whithout explaining why,
Now for homework, look again at the piece, and see how many more ways you can think of improving the detailing, and the proportions. There are a few left undiscussed!
Cheers,
P (beautiful person!)
:D :D :D
Skew ChiDAMN!! 3rd December 2005, 02:41 PM It reminds me of the pews at the very back of the country hall where I had bible studies as a kid; the uncomfortable sodding things no-one ever used if they had a choice, apart from bag storage. Us kids rarely had a choice... I reckon I spent enough hours on 'em that even now, 40 years later, I could still build one from memory. :(
Like most things which find their way into churches: lovely workmanship, but butt ugly. :D
bitingmidge 3rd December 2005, 02:47 PM lovely workmanship, but butt ugly. :D
I must be going through my pompous period.
Anyway, that's what I meant!
P
:D :D :D
Lignum 3rd December 2005, 03:16 PM It looks as if it was designed to be used as a blanket box to match up with an existing sleigh bed. The Midge is right its all over the place:eek:
---------just read its for a hall way... stuffs my theory
Skew ChiDAMN!! 3rd December 2005, 03:50 PM I must be going through my pompous period.
Anyway, that's what I meant!
:D
Actually, I appreciate the time ya took to put down why you think things are wrong with it. You called it on a couple of things I couldn't put my finger on but didn't look... right. The plain side panels for example. 'Tis nice to gain an insight on how more... ahhh... "normal" people think. ;)
Most of my efforts are based around the golden mean, but are then subject to design changes to fix... err... cover... err... repair my mistakes. :o
But I don't know that the seat is too narrow, I think that's a matter of perspective. IMHO it does look too high up in proportion to the overall height. Personally I'd reduce the height of the front panels and raise/change the skirt so it's profile matched the backrest's top curve and hopefully blend the legs into the arm profile.
And then I'd throw up my arms in disgust and go build something else. :D
Termite 3rd December 2005, 04:17 PM It would look great in the right setting, but I just can't imagine the right setting.:rolleyes:
The workmanship is very good though, and tends to reinforce the designer/builder discussions current at the moment.
echnidna 3rd December 2005, 04:20 PM Ross!!.... and you call yourself a woodworker!
;) :D :D :D
Dust Mite, on another thread you rightly remarked that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
There is a great tendency among us, as I tried to say on that thread, to mistake good workmanship for good design.
Rather than describe it as "ugly", I'll tell you why I wouldn't build it like that. I'll try to stay away from the "eye of the beholder" stuff, and keep to basic principals.
I may not be as harsh as Bob or Ross, (a lot of Americans wouldn't consider it tasteless, but then they still think blue checked suits are the go as well) but if you look carefully, you may see something proportionally just not quite right. When you look at it does the seat look too high or too narrow to you??
You'll also see as Bob intimated, a "modernisation" of classic decoration, particularly at the base which serves no purpose other than to make sweeping under it difficult. The skirt "feels" as though it comes from a different piece to the sides.
The "sleigh" sides are completely different in weight and feel to the back, almost as if the back was rescued from a different piece.
How much nicer would it have been if the back and the front panel had matching numbers of panels, or if the back had the same "baluster" detail as the sides? What about the way the curved sides just but up against the straight back piece leaving a curvy gap, because the designer didn't know what to do at that point?
See how the designer ran out of steam on the side panel, and didn't create a panel to match the front?
As an exercise in routing, it's no doubt given the owner a great deal of pride and satisfaction, and I could see it in the corner of someone's hallway, buried under cushions behind a few pot plants, so in the right spot it wouldn't scream "butt ugly", but neither could it under any circumstance become a classic.
No matter what style or whether a particular piece is to someone's individual "taste", great design is usually easy to appreciate.
It's in the proportion and detailing, and a well proportioned, well detailed piece will be appreciated by all, even if not to their particular "taste". This just isn't one of them.
BTW, I don't make a practise of criticising stuff, unless the author particularly is calling for same, and unless I can give clear reasons. I don't think it's good enough to use terms like "ugly" or "tasteless" (sorry chaps!;) ) whithout explaining why,
Now for homework, look again at the piece, and see how many more ways you can think of improving the detailing, and the proportions. There are a few left undiscussed!
Cheers,
P (beautiful person!)
:D :D :D
I would rather people tell me the truth and why, just as you have done in you post. Than have people say that something is nice if it isn't.
All designers have flops, but from these flops, with constructive critiscm, the inspiration to make something truly outstanding can come.
Lignum 3rd December 2005, 04:45 PM Well Hickory`s Deacons seat is well in the clear with 39.50% of the vote:D
I would put a vote in for frank with this http://routerforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=995 but im not allowed:(
bitingmidge 3rd December 2005, 06:15 PM Yep, Frank's teardrop is a big improvement!
P
:D
| |